"It's not what you say that counts...."

Is there anybody else here who remembers the old TV game show "You Don't Say?" The idea was to give your partner hints to a well-known name or phrase by making a statement but leaving off the last word ("That's the word you don't say," as the show's slogan had it.), which was supposed to sound like part of the answer.

It's not the same thing, but I'm repeatedly reminded of that idea when I listen to statements by politicians, governments, and the like and notice that despite the attempt to create a certain appearance, what they're not saying is as important as what they are saying.

Case in point: I'm sure you've heard about the pictures published by the Daily Mirror purportedly showing UK soldiers, among other things, urinating on hooded, bound prisoners. From today's news:

London, England (CNN) - Dramatic pictures said to show British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners were not taken in Iraq, the UK government has said.

Armed forces minister Adam Ingram told MPs Thursday an inquiry by military police found the truck seen in the photos published by the Daily Mirror newspaper "was never in Iraq."

The predictable result was trashing of the newspaper, demands for heads to roll, shooting the messenger, the whole nine yards.

The Conservative opposition asked the Mirror's publishers what action they intended to take against [Daily Mirror Editor Piers] Morgan.

"Those who connived with the production of those photographs and those who published them did a great wrong," said Conservative defense spokesman Keith Simpson.

Uh, huh. Sure. Right. But explain something to me first: What part of the government's statement said that the pictures were faked?

In fact, no such assertion was made. Even if the government is technically correct, the pictures could still portray real abuse, just somewhere at some facility outside Iraq where UK soldiers are involved.

Of course, this does not mean the pictures weren't faked - in fact, I have real doubts about them; when I first saw them, as a photographer they just didn't look right to me - but rather that the government hasn't shown or actually even claimed to have shown that they were. But the usual suspects are taking it as a complete refutation, as the rest of us are supposed to.

Personally, what I think Tony Blair & Co. should do is tell everyone how they identified the particular truck (and how they know it's that truck as opposed to any other truck), how they know it was never in Iraq, list every place it has been (so we have a list of potential sites where the pictures were taken and which they must have in order to know it was never in Iraq), and discuss what it means to have what they seem to have admitted is a UK Army truck appear in pictures of abuse of prisoners, regardless of whether those pictures were taken in Iraq.

And even that, of course, still doesn't answer the question of if the photos are real or not.

Update May 14: The Daily Mirror has conceded that it fell victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and the pictures were indeed faked, the BBC reports. Editor Piers Morgan has been fired.

At a news conference in Preston on Friday afternoon, the regiment demonstrated to reporters aspects of uniform and equipment which it said proved the photographs were fake.

The regiment's Brigadier Geoff Sheldon said the vehicle featured in the photographs had been located in a Territorial Army base in Lancashire and had never been in Iraq.

Fine; I'm not even surprised - I said the pictures didn't look right. But - assuming that there is a way to show the truck in the picture and the one in Lancashire are one and the same - I still wonder how a UK army vehicle wound up in the pictures.